BuzzerBeater Forums

Come on let's be reasonable, this one about "new managers" is a completely ridiculous argument.

So complaining because they make, maybe, 20k less per week well into their second season and they have more than 1 season without floor seems puzzling.

It is compelety ridiculous to mix up new teams, promotion bonusses and the revenue of Englands D I, just to refute my opinion.

You said:

To make a profit in D1 in England you need to make 156k per week.

The break even point really? If I make $1 per week, with a weak roster AND minimum salary staff (that would drag me into the red the very next week) I might be making a profit, but I am going nowhere.

I see, that the salary floor in "competitive" leagues might be too low - good indicator would be demoting teams, that promote the next season, but then again we could raise the demotion penalty and hurt specific teams that underperform.

Take a look at a team in my league: (42118)

45k salary with a standard 21 man roster - 6k arena

arena max income: $79k
TV: 109k
merch: 63k

Income in the first 16 weeks if this team stays put ~ 3.3 million. Just take a look what players 3.3 million will get you (keep in mind you have to add 140k total salary), old farts that will decline, foreigners most certainly, that will make your merchandise fall off a cliff. If you invest like half the money in your arena, you get even less useful players.

Promotion money is far far away and the gap between established and new teams is the same as before, it just takes longer to catch up.

For the "real" tanking teams nothing has changed. in my situation: They demote from D I. with a 500-600k roster, sell one or two players, cruise to the finals like it ain't a thang, maybe add one or two players after allstar-break. Win promotion, rinse repeat.

It is compelety ridiculous to mix up new teams, promotion bonusses and the revenue of Englands D I, just to refute my opinion.

No it isn't. You say the problem is where they don't have revenues to turn a profit, which means in higher divisions (hence the stress on D1's economy). People start in higher divisions only in smaller nations.

Since they start at the lowest possible division where there are tons of bots, a lot of new managers who stick around actually get their first promotion rather soon (hence the promotion bonus).

The break even point really? If I make $1 per week, with a weak roster AND minimum salary staff (that would drag me into the red the very next week) I might be making a profit, but I am going nowhere.

With a weak roster you can make up to 400k per week in the first 16 weeks. I described the (apparently) WORST POSSIBLE scenario where:
1) you have started in a D1 with those economics (I think in micronations economy is somewhere between a D1 and D2 elsewhere, so it's even less of a problem)
2) you have blown $600k on players in the first 4 week, which cost you $420k a week in salary. So in fact, over 16 weeks you have spent 16*420k+600k=7 million on players and you have no cash.
3) you have built 0 seats

Math is not difficult you could have very easily seen that with 16 week on a 50k salary (staying put) you will make 5.5 million with those economy numbers. 5.5 million: spend it on the arena, and you will keep making $300k per week from week 17 onwards. Seriously.

arena max income: $79k

Don't offend my intelligence. This person has not changed prices. $79k (which is 81,230 to be precise...) is NOT a realistic indication of his arena income. He's selling out every single class of seats. 120k probably is more accurate with correct seat prices. Which again: 120k+109k+63k-45k-6k=+241k per week = 3.8 million (if he hoards the money). That's like 7-10k worth of seats.

Absolutely nothing has changed from before. Nothing, not for new managers.

For the "real" tanking teams nothing has changed. in my situation: They demote from D I. with a 500-600k roster, sell one or two players, cruise to the finals like it ain't a thang, maybe add one or two players after allstar-break. Win promotion, rinse repeat.

I did say that a slightly higher floor in D1 would be welcome. 420k for us is not bad, that's already removing 500k-1m from tanking teams.

Now, if they could amend the fan survey to punish people losing on purpose it would be better, we all agree. Evidently it was too hard to do quickly and they chose a sensible and quicker way to deal with the problem.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 2/19/2016 5:13:49 AM

arena max income: $79k

Don't offend my intelligence. This person has not changed prices. $79k (which is 81,230 to be precise...) is NOT a realistic indication of his arena income.

79k is the maximum income according to buzzermanager and if I was you I'd rather not overestimate a newbie and his knowledge of the game - we have a team that has started in season 4 and still only has 14k seats...

I did the calculation in my mind and I was wrong (age I assume): 5438*10+500*35+60*100+2*800=54380+17500+6000+1600=79480. My bad for that, but point still remains that he's selling out and could charge much much higher prices and with a 50% increase might still sell out in D2. I had LT over 50 and courtside at 130 in D4 in Utopia if I remember correctly

I did the calculation in my mind and I was wrong (age I assume): 5438*10+500*35+60*100+2*800=54380+17500+6000+1600=79480. My bad for that, but point still remains that he's selling out and could charge much much higher prices and with a 50% increase might still sell out in D2. I had LT over 50 and courtside at 130 in D4 in Utopia if I remember correctly

of course he could. He is a newbie (about to become bot, like so many), so don't expect him to plan like a long tenured manager that makes no mistakes with his second team.

And btw. I suggested (years ago) that arenas for new teams should be much bigger depending on Divison. I think I was asking for 15k, 10k, 7.5k (DIV I, II, III). Why not let the new teams catch up much faster? There is no excitement in expanding the arena anyways - the unforseeable delays because of lazy workers, are annoying anyways.

Last edited by Knecht at 2/19/2016 6:18:21 AM

I suggested they cut the cost of building seats actually, seasons and seasons ago. You may achieve the same result by applying a discount on seats for a limited time (let's say those 16 weeks) which is greater the higher the level you start, so D1=30% off, D2=20% off, D3=10% off and D4=10% off for 16 weeks only (percentages are just random). Then they revert to the normal values.

whatever makes the game easier...

...but on the other hand, why should we make some changes that need some action on behalf of a user, that most likely is overwhelmed with the complexity of the game and has no clue how to get started in the first place? Just add those seats from the beginning and lets get on with it.

I see, that the salary floor in "competitive" leagues might be too low - good indicator would be demoting teams, that promote the next season, but then again we could raise the demotion penalty and hurt specific teams that underperform.

That seems to also be attacking the results, not the behavio(u)r. If the goal is to prevent tanking, it needs to address that, not the teams that go 8-14 but lose a relegation series.

On the salary floor, there's a lot of posting about how this negatively impacts new teams in, I presume, smaller nations (since a new team in the USA in IV would have a quite comfortable salary floor still). The figures I've seen about tripling the salaries and having $200k+ salary floors clearly would not apply in anything below a very competitive II league, and probably more likely a semi-competitive I.

So what if the actual application of the salary floor is phased in based on the league level? If you're in IV, after 16 weeks you should be fine. Maybe even the same for III, since that's under 110k for me both in the US and A and in Utopia, but then 32 weeks for II and 48 weeks for I. That gives those teams who may actually have a legitimate gripe more of an opportunity to get their team built up to a point to conform.